The Monteleone Chariot of Italy Depicts Rama and Ravana’s Confrontation: Part I

‘There is no subject, in which we must proceed with more caution than in tracing the history of the arts and sciences; lest we assign causes which never existed and reduce what is merely contingent to stable and universal principles.’ David Hume
[This comment by skeptic philosopher David Hume could be applied to the preconceived notion that all Etruscan art is solely derived from Greek art, which is not really true.]

Before tackling the subject of the Monteleone Chariot found near Spoleto, Italy, which is now on display at none other than the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, I want to give you the context in which this large artifact came to fruition. Sybille Haynes’ book Etruscan civilization: A Cultural History provides us with the following background:

“Taken over from the Near East by the aristocracy in Etruria for transport, warfare, and racing from the mid-eighth century B.C., chariots as well as carriages became status symbols and eventually purely ceremonial vehicles: they served to parade the social rank of their owners in triumphal and other processions and were finally deposited in tombs. Of the surviving remains of over 250 chariots in Italy, Etruria has yielded far more examples than Piceno, Lazio, and Umbria. This proves the overwhelming importance attached to such vehicles by the Etruscans.” (pg. 102)

The Tomb of the Chariots in Populonia, approximately dated from 650-575 B.C., contains the remains of a chariot with a classic design of eight-spoked wheels. The Aryan chariot warriors were clearly important role models for men in the higher strata of Etruscan society. The Monteleone Chariot, a ceremonial chariot depicting key episodes of the Ramayana, beckons from a similar time period (sixth century B.C.) which comprises the major transition from abstract to personal representations of divinity. Haynes believes that “representation of the gods in human form seems not to have taken place until the end of the Orientalizing period,” or about 575 B.C. (pg. 126).

Monteleone Chariot in Etruscan Exhibit at Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC           Bifurcating Appendage at Front of Car Appears to Represent Winged Flight          

Haynes comments on the Monteleone chariot: “The three relief panels on the front and sides of the box are linked by the frontal figures of two nude, long-haired youths standing on lions.” She adds her opinion that the chief who had it commissioned was a Sabine, and he wanted “the vehicle made to display his high social position and heroic warrior qualities, likening himself to the heroes of the Iliad.” (pg. 168-169). The problem with her analysis is the assumption that a Greek hero served as the Sabine aristocrat’s inspiration. Critiquing this default conclusion, Otto Brendel states: “One must doubt that the narrative method of the bronze chariot was derived from a Greek source, even if the story itself was Greek, which is uncertain… Greek art on the whole was reluctant to accept this form of narrative by progressive episodes: instead it preferred to collect the essential aspects of a story in one single action.” (pg. 150-151, Etruscan Art).

In my humble opinion, the greatest fighters of the Ramayana - Rama, Lakshmana, and Ravana - are likely portrayed on this chariot, NOT the heroes of the Iliad including Achilles. The youths standing between and linking the three relief panels are probably ornamental, based on their non-descript nature and relatively small size (they might also be identifiable as Lava and Kusha). By examining each of the three panels closely, starting from the front, there will be little doubt that this is a Ramayanic scene, primarily the Golden Deer episode. Additionally, I will use the Campana plaques alongside the Monteleone panels for comparative purposes. 

The Golden Deer Episode where Ravana kidnaps Sita

Rama kills the demon Maricha who entices him away by posing as a spotted deer

For those of you who are unacquainted with the story of the golden deer, I will give a brief summary. King Ravana’s sister Shurpanakha convinces her brother to kidnap Sita, wife of Rama. Ravana, the demon king of Lanka, instructs his uncle Maricha to decoy the two brothers, Rama and Lakshmana, away from their habitation in the woods, using the attractive golden deer disguise as bait. After Maricha, the demon with magic powers, assumes the deceptive form of a pretty spotted deer, Sita asks Rama to capture it, to either make it their new pet animal or at least acquire its beautiful skin. When Rama kills Maricha, his frightful, demoniac human form reappears just before his death. Maricha cunningly cries for help while imitating Rama’s voice before falling, so that Lakshmana is also drawn away from the hermitage. Sita is now alone, and Ravana pounces on her after fooling her with his own disguise as a humble sage. Then Ravana forces her into his aerial vehicle harnessed with donkeys, which is what we see in one of the side panels in the Monteleone Chariot. The following stanzas from Valmiki’s work make this description explicitly clear:

“Ravana and Maricha ascended the chariot, which was like an aerial car, and quickly departed… Ravana, king of the demons, accompanied by Maricha, then reached Dandaka forest and saw Rama's hermitage.” (3.42.9-11)

“There arrived the great golden chariot of Ravana, illusive and wonderful, harnessed with donkeys and braying like donkeys. Reproaching the princess from Videha (Sita) loudly and harshly, Ravana took her on his lap and put her on the chariot… Passionate Ravana took hold of Sita who was not willing and was writhing in pain. He seized her like an eagle carrying away a serpent queen and flew up. While Sita was being carried off in the sky by the king of demons, she screamed a lot in agony.” (3.49.19-23)

Front Panel of Monteleone Chariot: Bearded Rama (right) receives shield from Sita (left)

The Monteleone Chariot represents something akin to the Pushpaka Vimana, which was owned by both Ravana and Rama after conquering an enemy. When Rama defeated Ravana he received the special flying chariot called Pushpaka Vimana, which could be symbolized by this parade chariot from Spoleto. The chariot Ravana uses to abduct Sita, however, is not the same as the Pushpaka Vimana. Therefore, there is some chance the front scene features Ravana and his sister Shurpanakha, or Ravana and his wife Mandodari (as opposed to Rama and Sita). Then the Monteleone Chariot would symbolize Ravana’s golden chariot, which he used to kidnap Sita, and Rama would thus be absent from the iconography. However, I am going to assume the man in the front panel conforms to Rama’s attributes rather than Ravana’s, while the other man standing in the chariot drawn in the side panel is almost certainly Ravana. I believe the male characters in the two side panels are not necessarily matchable to the male warrior in the front panel. The shield in the central panel, for example, is not equivalent to the shield in the mortal combat scene depicted on the right side of the central panel. The front panel, in my opinion, shows Sita asking Rama to hunt down the spotted fawn positioned between them. The left side panel shows Ravana abducting Sita, who displays figurative resistance when she puts her hand above her head. The right side of the chariot shows Ravana wounding Lakshmana with his guided spear, a famous story from the Yuddha Kanda (Book of War) of the Valmiki Ramayana. The sequence of events runs counterclockwise, starting with the front panel scene.

Left Side Panel of Bronze Chariot: Ravana's Winged Chariot Subdues Sita

If we close in on the front panel, the Jatayu-like birds hover over Rama (right) and Sita (left) while she hands her husband a helmet with a ram’s head on top (signifying he is indeed Lord Rama, the great king) and the mysterious shield with two faces that are identifiable as the demons Shurpanakha, Ravana’s sister, and Maricha, who disguises himself as a golden deer. This front chariot scene represents the golden deer chase by Rama, who kills Maricha, and Shurpanakha’s humiliation at Panchavati. Maricha’s mask is sitting below Ravana’s sister’s mask, with hair and mustache strands that match the deerskin and limbs of the animal, respectively. The spotted deer is drawn upside down, clearly signifying its death. Its skin has ring-like patterns to highlight its attractiveness and these patterns are duplicated in smaller sizes on both sides of Maricha’s hairline. His hair, eyes, and ears represent the deer’s frame in miniature, thus connecting him to the creature he disguises himself as to lure Rama. The pointed ears of Maricha’s face mask mirror the shape of the deer’s ears, and are distinct in shape from the ears of the wicked woman Shurpanakha above. The two dot-sized eyes on Maricha’s forehead and his spotted hair are meant to indicate that he has an alter ego, the golden deer, in my opinion. The spots are oval-shaped, with one smaller oval drawn inside a larger oval, in both Maricha’s hair and in the deer skin. The deer touches the mask of Maricha right under his face. Clearly, the artists were matching the rakshasa (demon) to the spotted fawn.

Maricha's Demoniac Face Mask Above Spotted Deer

Demoniac Face of Rahu "Swallowing the Moon" from Cambodia

Otto Brendel describes the scene in his own words:

“The centre panel shows a bearded man and a woman facing each other while a spotted fawn lies on the ground between them, obviously dead… From the sky birds swoop down, perhaps as lucky omens.” (pg. 146, Etruscan Art)



The classic spotted deer is known as the cheetal (chital), which is native to India (see above photos). Considering its natural range is the Indian subcontinent, there should be no doubt this panel is describing an Indian legend. Notice that the bearded Rama on the front panel of the Monteleone Chariot looks almost the same as the man in the Campana Plaques walking with Sita and Lakshmana. In addition to the similar facial expression, the clothing Rama wears is reminiscent of the clothing worn in the Campana panels. Rama is standing barefooted in the chariot panel along with Sita, whereas he and Lakshmana are wearing some primitive-looking shoes in the Campana plaque. Thus the chariot panel and the Campana plaque are hinting that Rama is living a simple life in the wilderness (see below to compare the portrayals of Rama in the two artworks, one from Perugia on the left and the other from Caere on the right). 



In the case of Shurpanakha, the demoness had transformed herself into a beautiful woman with a lovely figure to seduce Rama. Rama was curious to know who she was, as she suddenly arrived at his hermitage one day (3.17.5). Since the Dandaka forest where Rama lived was mainly inhabited by demons, Rama is surprised by her appearance, remarking to Shurpanakha that “with lovely limbs you do not appear to be a demoness.” (3.17.19). She explains that she is “a demoness who can assume any form at will” and moves alone in the forest. Her romantic advances are not only rebuffed by Rama, but the nasty woman also threatens to literally eat his dear wife Sita (3.18.16). Once her threat becomes serious, Rama responds by ordering his brother Lakshmana to check her. Lakshmana proceeds to cut off her nose and ears with his sword.

We can certainly see from this narration the similarities between Shurpanakha, the horrible Indian Rakshasi, and Medusa, the infamous Greek Gorgon. Medusa is beheaded by Perseus, the Greek hero, while Shurpanakha is defaced by Lakshmana, the Indian hero. Both have ugly and hideous forms, as well as ravishingly beautiful forms, at different stages. According to Ovid (Metamorphoses 4.770), Medusa was originally an attractive woman, but Athena transformed her hair strands into serpents, and her face into one so terrifying as to turn others who peered at it to stone. Because Medusa was a Gorgon, and Gorgons have monstrous forms, there is confusion over whether the Greeks originally thought of her as hideous or pretty. Nonetheless, the Ionian artists of the sixth century BC Monteleone chariot must have had Medusa and Gorgons in mind as models when designing the mask of the wicked Shurpanakha (see pictures below, notice the difference in the two noses).

Terracotta Gorgoneion Antefix (540 BC), South Italy

Shurpanakha with empty slot for tongue and lacerated nose

Analyzing the front panel of the Monteleone chariot again, we see that Sita hands Rama a shield with the ugly face of Shurpanakha (identified by the longer hair, like that of Medusa) above the grim face of Maricha. This seems to be appropriate for a couple of reasons - the deer chase and the confrontation with Ravana’s sister are both initiated after Sita plays a central role. Sita is the one whose life is threatened by Shurpanakha, which leads to Lakshmana cutting off her nose and ears. On her mask, her flattened nose seems to be more torn or ripped than Maricha’s protruding nose (lines and wrinkles are usually seen on the forehead and not the nose), though her ears are intact on her face on the shield. At Panchavati Lakshmana cut off the nose of Shurpanakha and this place came to be known as “Nashik" (from Sanskrit word Nāsikā – meaning nose). Several other references to the Ramayana can be found in Nashik, which includes the Sita Gumpha caves, from where Sita, Lord Rama's wife, was abducted by Ravana. The act of cutting off the nose (as opposed to the ears) thus holds a more prominent place in the memory of Shurpanakha, because presumably that is a more centralized and uglier scar on the body. Therefore, we should not be alarmed if we do not see ears mutilated in the Monteleone chariot scene. The mutilated nose is probably enough evidence to identify it as Shurpanakha. It was easy to model her after Medusa because both had (or could assume) gorgeous forms, before their hideous form became permanent and unbearable (see Valmiki Ramayana 3.17.21-22 - Aranya Kanda, Sarga 17, Verses 21-22, https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/). 

The terracotta relief panel below, conventionally dated to the Gupta period (c. 5th century CE), was found at Deogarh, Uttar Pradesh. On the left is Rama, sitting with his bow and right hand raised (just like the Etruscans depicted him centuries earlier). In the middle is Sita, standing with her hands over her chest in a defensive posture. On the right Lakshmana raises his sword to cut off the nose of Shurpanakha, who is kneeling down and has been restrained by the hair.

Gupta Art Collection, National Museum, New Delhi, India

Shurpanakha, a dreadful, monstrous female rakshasa, fits the description of a Gorgon. The name Gorgon comes from the ancient Greek word gorgós, ”dreadful”, and its root form is also the source of the Sanskrit word “garjana”, a roaring and grunting sound, like the growling of a beast. The Gorgoneion, or a Gorgon face with the tongue sticking out menacingly, is usually accompanied by snakes protruding around the face, and utilized as an apotropaic symbol. Wikipedia notes how the ancient Greeks and Hindus both share this symbolism: “In Hindu mythology, Kali is often shown with a protruding tongue and snakes around her head.” When Rama receives the shield from Sita with Shurpanakha’s ugly expression on it, the signification is that the defensive armour will avert demoniac influences, such as those of Shurpanakha. In the Valmiki Ramayana, Sita does not literally hand Rama a shield or helmet in the forest conflict with rakshasas, so this scene is also figurative as a symbol of good luck against evil forces.

Shurpanakha, after returning from her humiliation at the hands of Lakshmana in the Ramayana, apparently poisoned her brother Ravana’s mind with covetousness and lust for Sita. To get her own revenge, she convinced him with sweet words to abduct Sita for himself. He could satisfy his base desires as a rakshasa and deal a devastating blow to Rama. Besides, it was his nature to assault the wives of other men, so the plan was very tempting to him and he salivated over the opportunity to feast his eyes on Sita. Shurpanakha can thus be observed as a key instigator in the Ramayanic war. We should not underestimate her importance just because she was a minor character in the epic. The Halloween trick-or-treat masks on the Monteleone chariot panel of Ravana’s sister Shurpanakha and Ravana’s uncle Maricha are critical to a correct decryption of the story being narrated. Apparently the Etruscan or Ionian artists realized how to cleverly imbue the shield with an ominous quality that foreshadowed the wicked deeds of Ravana, the demon king of kings. Both Shurpanakha (first disguised as a pretty woman) and Maricha (first disguised as a beautiful deer) used deception to ‘trick’ Rama with a fake treat; one failed and the other succeeded. The Halloween nightmare that ensued was best encapsulated by the two most painful episodes for Rama before the climax of the war: Sita’s kidnapping and Lakshmana’s near-fatal wound from Ravana’s spear. The other two panels on the sides of the chariot are depicting exactly those two events, albeit with a Mediterranean/Near Eastern flavor.

German scholar Otto Brendel in his book Etruscan Art makes an extremely important observation regarding this point I am making, which is thought provoking for all modern scholars. He realizes that the artistic technique and style may be Greek and Etruscan, but the content and iconography could easily be Oriental:

“By this time (beginning of the sixth century) Etruscan artists had acquired sufficient freedom and mastery of representational form to attempt occasionally the rendition of subjects which lay outside the limits of the Greek parent art… The possibility must at least be taken into consideration that Etruscan works occasionally represent subject matter acquired from oriental art, which may not be immediately obvious to a modern critic because it has been translated into Greek or Greco-Etruscan techniques and forms of representation.” (pg 66-67)



Larissa Bonfante’s book Etruscan Life and Afterlife has provided a drawn reconstruction of the Monteleone chariot (dated c. 550-540 BC). When the Persians conquered Ionia during that period, resulting social changes facilitated the transfer of religious myth from India to Etruria. The artist's rendering above shows the characteristic open tongue of Indian female goddess Kāli on the shield, usually the emblem of the Rakshasas, along with the spotted deer. The bottom face just on top of the deer is a representation of Maricha, and the face above him (with what looks like a broken or wounded nose) is Shurpanakha.

Wherefore Art Thou Ramnes? The Eastern Origins of the Roman Tribal Name: Part II

The interconnectedness of the Semitic and Indo-European worlds in the first millennium BC helps explain why the word ‘Rama’ was universally held in high esteem. ‘Rama’ may have had different connotations in various cultures, but the feelings it stirred were always positive. Especially from the eighth century to sixth century BC, we observe unusually thoughtful interactions between distinct civilizations. 

Richard Foltz, a Canadian scholar on Iran, has noted that many Israelites deported by Assyrians after 722 BC moved to Iranian territories. In Iran the Israelites imbibed Zoroastrian ideas and assimilated them into their own religion, which also influenced Christianity and Islam. Foltz writes: “Avestan notions that came to be central to later religions such as Christianity and Islam - including the existence of heaven and hell, angels and demons, the Devil, the Resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgement, and the restoration of the divine kingdom by a Savior figure following an apocalyptic battle between the forces of good and evil - are all absent from the Israelites’ sacrifice-based Yahweh cult prior to their contact with Iranians.” (pg. 13, Iran in World History). Whether we look at Etruscans and Phoenicians, Israelites and Iranians (Persians), Ionian Greeks and Indians, or Athenian Greeks and Egyptians, this so-called Axial Age (circa middle of the 1st millennium BC) was a pivotal period in the historical expansion of trade and social exchange. The encounters between Ionian Greeks and Indians, in particular, during the sixth century BC and beyond, would prove to be one of the most significant in the history of philosophical inquiry (please see The Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilley). Simon Price and Peter Thonemann confirm the importance of this ancient era in their book The Birth of Classical Europe (published by Penguin Books, 2011):

“The period from the eighth to the sixth century BC undoubtedly marks a critical stage in the development of Europe… The Greek and Phoenician diaspora in the west tied the whole Mediterranean into a single macro-economic system, with an increasingly homogenous material culture stretching from Tyre to Gadir and from Massilia to Euboea, in which Egyptian faience was as prized at Tarquinii and Perachora as it was at Nineveh and Carthage. By 500 BC, we can for the first time talk about the Mediterranean world as a single cultural unit.” (pg. 100)

Therefore it should be no surprise that the so-called Italian tribal name ‘Ramnes’ also refers to a geographic location, 'Ramah', in the Near Eastern lingua franca Aramaic, in addition to the heroic, Indo-Iranian personal name Rama. Because Aramaic was the common language of the Mediterranean world during the seventh and sixth centuries BC, it was a perfect candidate for providing a name for the new cosmopolitan city in Latium. Ruled by the Etruscan kings, who were inclined towards Orientalization, Rome was founded with the intention of making it a global metropolis with a lasting impact. In order for this to happen, the name had to live up to the Etruscan, as well as Latin, Sabine, Greek, and Phoenician, notions of grandeur. To be recognized by all these cultures and many other civilizations of the world, the new city could not simply be a local, Italian term. ‘Rama’ means ‘pleasing to all’ in Indo-Iranian, and connotes a place of high elevation, mainly used for Near Eastern town names in Syria and Israel. It was a natural word because it encapsulated all the qualities of the central setting in Latium, especially its geographical features. The Roman hills and the Roman imitation of Near Eastern kingship in that time period were thus designated by a common terminology, which was passed on from generation to generation encoded in the form Ramnes or Ramnenses. 

It may seem odd to make such an assertion, but there are examples from the present that validate my argument’s cogency. Memphis, Tennessee has nothing in common with Memphis, Egypt, except that both were founded along great rivers, the Mississippi and the Nile, respectively. Because Memphis was remembered as the glorious ancient capital of Egyptian civilization, the American leaders (including Andrew Jackson) wanted to initiate their own glorious chapter in the New World of North America with this Egyptian place name. Similarly, the Roman kings in Latium wanted to capture the magnificence of the Near East, and ‘Rama’, used from one end of the Persian Empire (Levant) to another (Indus Valley), was a good choice.

Martin Bernal astutely observes in his controversial work Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization (Vol. III): “For a city set on seven hills, the name Roma and the Etruscan clan name Ruma are more plausibly derived from the common Canaanite place-name Ramah ‘citadel, high place’.” (pg. 181). By no means am I necessarily endorsing all or most of Bernal’s theories, but I totally agree with him here about Rome because I independently arrived at the same conclusion. However, even though he was a white historian, Martin Bernal has been shunned by colleagues and the mainstream research community because of his unconventional views. Check out the Bible Atlas map of Ramah to understand its importance in the ancient Judeo-Christian world. Modern Ramallah is the most likely representative of the ancient city of Ramah, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica and the Bible Atlas webpage.

The most likely explanation for ‘Ramnenses’ is the following: Ramn- + -ensis (Latin for ‘of or from a place’), which would literally stand for ‘of Ramna’ or ‘from Ramna’ (perhaps the near eastern places called Ramah), or from the land of Ramna - India and Persia. “The suffix -ēnsis is added to a toponym (usually the name of a town) or to a topographical name, in order to form an adjective” in Latin (Wiktionary). Rama the hero may have been interpreted as a topographical name, or a name derived from the places of high elevation in Aramaic speaking lands (e.g. today we have Rahm Emanuel, current mayor of Chicago in the USA); otherwise, Ramna (Rama) simply referred to the land of the Aryans (Indo-Persia).

When Varro says that ‘Ramnenses’ is Etruscan, he really means the first syllable (‘Ram’) is imported, but the suffix -enses or -nes utilizes Latin or Greek. Ramnes is simply a Greek form of Ramna, as Ariya-Ramna becomes Ariya-Ramnes. Ramna-enses can be broken down in Latin as ‘of or pertaining to the Roman or Raman people’, similar to the modern surname Ramanathan, commonly found in South India. The fact that they do not spell or pronounce the tribe as ‘Romnes’ or ‘Romnenses’ (or even ‘Rumnes’ or ‘Rumnenses’) reveals its genesis from a non-indigenous source. Ramnenses literally should connote the tribe native to a place of high elevation, which is exactly what Rome is and was - a city of seven hills.

To make the point I am making clearer, let me give you a parallel example of an imported regal name, this time from Rome to others: the prevalence of Augustus and Caesar in place names located in regions under the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire. Taking place in ancient Israel and Judea, Herod’s biography is similar to that of the tyrant of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus. Because he was a Roman ally, Herod organized his Jewish kingdom “in such a way as to situate it firmly within the cultural climate of the Graeco-Roman world… A new city, called Caesarea, was founded, and the ancient city of Samaria was rebuilt and renamed Sebaste (Greek equivalent of Latin Augusta, honoring emperor Augustus).” (pg. 14, The Archaeology of Ancient Judea and Palestine, by Ariel Lewin). In addition, Herod rebuilt the Temple of Jerusalem (c. 20 - 12 BC), which was “his most ambitious project”. This brings to mind the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus supposedly completed by the last Tarquin (Superbus), after Tarquinius Priscus initiated the construction in the sixth century BC, according to two authors contemporary to Herod, Dionysus of Halicarnassus and Livy. Perhaps they borrowed some elements from Herod’s life story when composing their own narrations of the Tarquin dynasty. Herod’s biography itself could be somewhat connected to mythical tyrants such as the Indian Kamsa, at least when we examine those parts relevant to the tales of the Biblical Christ and Puranic Krishna (see pgs. 70-72, The Bible and Asia by R.S. Sugirtharajah, Harvard University Press). 

The forms Caesarea and Sebaste (now modern Sebastia) clearly indicate how the word form Roma (Rama) was invented - after a legendary king who was not physically present. The Etruscan kings were trying to organize the land of southern Etruria and Latium in such a way so that central Italy would be integrated seamlessly into the cultural climate of the Eastern Mediterranean world. Therefore, like minds (Tarquinius Superbus and Herod) from unlike eras lead to similar results, including the naming of towns after foreign leaders they wished to emulate, impress or honor. 

We are all Romans, and yet we are all Persians as well. We are all Greeks, but we cannot forget that makes us all Indians as well. The entire human race is one family, and no matter what disputes people have had with each other in history, this fact can never be invalidated. It can be re-validated, however, and that is the ultimate purpose of this article. Without re-validation of our common heritage, we have no chance of achieving world peace in the foreseeable future. Ancient Heraclea Pontica in Asia Minor, modern Romania, ancient Apollonia in Libya, and Hellenistic era ‘Apollonia-Arsuf’ in Judea are all testaments to the transfer of the given names of Graeco-Roman gods and kings from one region to another. True, these receiving provinces were all subjects of a conquering empire, but even Rome was not a Latin-ruled nation until the Republic (509 BC). The Latin people were subjects of the Etruscan and Sabine kings, who were free to name the country using whatever language they deemed appropriate. They were under no obligation to use a Latin word, given the power they wielded.

The clinching proof that Ramnenses is also referencing a personality, not just a place, is the existence of ‘Caesariensis’ in the names of ancient Roman cities and provinces spread across Eurasia. These names include the 3rd century AD provinces in Britain - Flavia Caesariensis (Caesarian province of Flavius in north Britain) and Maxima Caesariensis (Caesarian province of Maximus in south Britain). One of the earliest examples is Mauretania Caesariensis. The North African province of Mauretania was divided by Claudius (c. 1st century AD) into Caesariensis and Tingitana; the first division was “named after its capital, one of many cities simply named Caesarea after the imperial cognomen that had become a title.” (Wikipedia). Here we have yet another Roman city well outside of Italy, named Caesarea. Sound like a familiar trend? Caesarea, like Ramna in Italy, was a foreign term in Britain, Judea, and Africa. On top of that, Caesar himself never founded any city named Caesarea, much like Indo-Aryan Ramna did not found Rome. Successors of Julius Caesar (such as Claudius and Augustus) encouraged the use of Caesar as an honorific, which was not literally meant to be taken as a direct reference to him. Similarly, Romulus is an encoded honorific, an allusion to legendary Eastern kings, especially Cyrus the Great of Persia and Rama of India. 

Roman Empire (125 AD): Places Named After Caesar, Augustus, and Romulus

Often names like 'Ramnenses' or 'Ramnes' are ‘puns’ with multiple meanings. The ancient historians are presenting us with puzzles that either they themselves could not solve or, they did not want us to solve. Cornell, for example, is confused by the two names of the Roman people - Romani and Quirites (pg. 75, The Beginnings of Rome). The names of the three tribes - Ramnenses, Titienses, and Lucerenses - are another riddle. These three names may be, among many other things, a subtle allusion to Rama, Sita, and Lakshman depicted in nearby Etruscan Caere. The narrative of female vulnerability, such as The Rape of Sabine women, Rhea Silvia’s seduction, and Lucretia’s violation, has a familiar ring to it - noble, chaste girls, like Sita, snatched away and shifted around to satisfy the patriarchal framework and instigate conflict. Titus Tatius, the Sabine king, may be a Roman pun on Sita or Sita’s father. Luceres, or Lucumo, while certainly an Etruscan word, may have been used by Romans as another indirect hint to our third Ramayanic hero, Lakshmana.

Ovid’s Fasti (3.124-126), translated by Peter Wiseman and his wife, Anne, is yet another source from the Roman Imperial period which mentions Ramnes, in a somewhat peculiar manner:
“Romulus divided the hundred Fathers into circles of ten each, and he instituted the ten hastati… He gave the same number of divisions to the Titienses, to those they call Ramnes, and to the Luceres.” (pg. 43-44). When the English classicist Wiseman translates Ovid’s words into “those they call Ramnes”, is he intimating that this is an alien term? It certainly appears that way, but he provides no explanatory note on the three groups, as if they are commonly understood. He gives us explanatory notes on numerous obscure anecdotes written by Ovid, but Peter Wiseman does not address ‘Ramnes’ here or in his book Remus: A Roman Myth. When British historians are afraid of a certain truth, they seem to pretend it is unimportant or decline to elaborate on the matter. In his book Remus: A Roman Myth, dedicated solely to Rome’s foundation myth and its origins, the British author Wiseman makes no mention of ‘Ramnes’ or ‘Ramnenses’. This is totally hypocritical, because you have to look at all the evidence, not just the evidence that suits your agenda. In her critique of Wiseman’s approach to Romulus and Remus, the classical scholar Mary Beard says that much of Wiseman’s book “is closer to fantasy than history… A whole series of lost Roman plays are concocted out of next to no evidence at all, and then made into major agents in the transmission of the myth.” (pg. 68, Confronting the Classics). So he was not only guilty of omitting factual evidence of great relevance, but he also was guilty of literally manufacturing his own evidence out of thin air!

The following statement regarding the three Roman tribes (including Ramnes), by Robert Palmer in his book The Archaic Community of the Romans, illustrates the willful ignorance of many western scholars: “The names of the tribunes of the three archaic tribes survived into historical times. Romans and Etruscans made of them what they would. The origin of the names cannot be ascertained. They do not belong to any known compound of personal names.” (pg. 8). Apparently Palmer has taken Juliet’s stance, ‘Deny thy father and refuse thy name!’, i.e., deny the very existence of ‘Ramnes’ in any known personal name in ancient historical records. Sure, that will solve the problem! Palmer’s ridiculous and arrogant assertion is very dangerous, and even Tim Cornell, a white British historian, has warned us about Anglo-Saxon attitudes toward early Roman history. He writes in the Preface to his book The Beginnings of Rome: “What is surprising, and needs to be explained, is the fact that early Roman history has been largely ignored by scholars in the English-speaking world. This seems to be a curiously Anglo-Saxon phenomenon.” (pg. xiv).

George Orwell’s Why I Write discusses the historical impulse of a writer, or the "desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.” Orwell adds later in his essay: “When I sit down to write a book, I do not say to myself, 'I am going to produce a work of art'. I write it because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing.” My sentiments are exactly the same as Orwell’s, so there is always a chance of reconciliation between Anglo-American and Indian history writers, despite the unreliability and hypocrisy of both. When commenting on the life of Mahatma Gandhi, Orwell insightfully remarked that Gandhi seemed to be “quite free from that maniacal suspiciousness which, as E. M. Forster rightly says in A Passage to India, is the besetting Indian vice, as hypocrisy is the British vice. Although no doubt he was shrewd enough in detecting dishonesty, he seems wherever possible to have believed that other people were acting in good faith and had a better nature through which they could be approached.” 

Gandhi’s approach needs to be adopted by both sides to produce meaningful progress in ancient historical research. Indians are too extreme or ambitious in their inflated expectations that everyone should accept very early dates for the Vedic civilization, while Westerners are overly conservative and hesitant in their estimates of the antiquity of Vedic culture, especially its literature and art. An ethical middle ground, not a compromise, is needed to stem the tide of “Anglo-Saxon” ignorance referred to by Tim Cornell. Looking at the list of contributing writers to the modern work A Companion to Livy, said to be “a collection of essays representing the most up-to-date international scholarship on the life and works of the Roman historian Livy”, one does not recognize a single author of any chapter in the book who comes from outside of Western Europe and North America. None of the authors are of Asian or African descent, at least as far as I can tell. Why are there so many European and White American scholars of ancient Indian history, but very few (if any) Asian scholars of ancient Greek and Roman history? Having a diversity of perspectives can lead to a more wholesome and satisfying comprehension of the ancient world, would you not agree?

Brahmins are blamed for monopolizing the sacred literature and knowledge of ancient India, but the western historians who pin the blame on Brahmanism are themselves guilty of all but monopolizing the study of the classical period. The historical content and discourse is dictated by the tastes and whims of British/European classicists, who often choose to emphasize only esoteric or trivial points of concern from the standpoint of the non-specialist studying ancient history. The public needs to put pressure on them to be more straightforward and less disingenuous. In short, Anglo-American historians have been conservative to a fault. Indian historians can be too liberal and overly optimistic about the antiquity of Vedic Aryan civilization, which plays right into the hands of the opposition which seeks to discredit them as Hindu fundamentalists. What needs to be remembered is that the truth is what matters, not someone’s political agenda. There is no real way of scientifically proving, for instance, at least to a satisfactory degree, that the Mahabharata War took place in roughly 3100 BC. These beliefs are based on faith, and are almost impossible to prove with hard science. Faith is a wonderful emotion, and nobody should discourage a person of faith from maintaining a belief in supernatural miracles. But since the whole world cannot unanimously accept something mainly or only based on faith, we have to restrict ourselves to historical events from the last two to three thousand years first, where everyone can arrive at some reasonable consensus.

At Quora.com Nirmalananda Reddy Kasivi, former Emeritus Professor in Anthropology (Biological) at Sri Venkateswara University (1992-2010), offers us an explanation of the meaning behind Rāma, which mirrors the Iranian scripture Bundahišn (see Part I of this series for the excerpt to compare): “Rama in Sanskrit means a person with purity of mind and embodiment of dharma, who attracts all with his divine appearance and qualities… The utterance or invocation of the word ‘Rama’ is the very cure for the disease of Samsara (family or worldly ties).” 

Therefore the Rāma of India, Rāman of Persia, Rāmah of Judea and Ramnes of Italy are essentially one and the same entity.

Wherefore Art Thou Ramnes? The Eastern Origins of the Roman Tribal Name: Part I

“From whom, and for what reason the great name of Rome, so famous among mankind, was given to that city, writers are not agreed.” (Plutarch’s Lives, Vol. 1, Life of Romulus, Chapter 1)

 

“The people were arranged in three bodies, the first called Ramnenses, from Romulus; the second Tatienses, from Tatius; and the third Lucerenses.” (Plutarch’s Lives, Vol. 1, Life of Romulus, Chapter 20)

 

The three legendary tribes of Rome - Ramnes or Ramnenses, Tities or Titienses, Luceres or Lucerenses - are cited by various Roman authors from the 3rd century BC to the 2nd century AD. Ennius (239-169 BC), Varro (116-27 BC), Cicero (106-43 BC), Livy (59 BC - 17 AD), Propertius (50-15 BC), and Plutarch (45 AD - 127 AD) all mention them, according to the Archaic Community of the Romans by Robert Palmer (Cambridge University Press, 1970, pg. 7). Palmer focuses on Varro, from the 1st century BC, as our main source of information. He translates Varro’s statement (De lingua latina or On the Latin Language, 5.55) thus: ‘The Roman territory was first divided into three parts which were called the tribe of Titienses, the tribe of the Ramnes and the tribe of the Luceres. According to Ennius the Titienses were named after Tatius, Ramnenses after Romulus and, according to Junius, the Luceres after Lucumo. All these words are Etruscan according to the playwright of Etruscan tragedies.’ By admitting that these tribal names are all non-Latin, while declining to explain their definition in Etruscan, we are still left confused. Why are the two names - Ramnes and Ramnenses - clearly interchangeable, exactly who or what are the names referring to, and why are they not pronounced Romnes and Romnenses? Before we can find out where these names came from, we need to know how and why they entered the Roman vocabulary of the Augustan age.

Today I am asking the whole world the question which any person familiar with Shakespeare would find amusing: Wherefore Art Thou Ramnes? In Romeo and Juliet, there is a passage where Juliet laments Romeo’s family name, because her family is at war with his family.

Juliet: O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name.

Wherefore does NOT mean ‘where’, but ‘why’ or ‘for what reason’, as John August insists and Merriam Webster confirms. The meaning is not where are you, Ramnes, but why is your name Ramnes, or more exactly, for what reason are you called Ramnes! By the way, Romeo is called Romeo because his name is derived from the Ancient Greek word for Roman (Rhomaios).

In Livy’s History of Rome (here translated by T.J. Luce of Princeton University), Ramnes and Ramnenses are each noted once, so both names were definitely in vogue in Livy’s time.

Book 1, Chapter 36: Lucius Tarquinius Priscus (c. 616-579 BC), “believing that his cavalry in particular was not up to needed strength, decided to add new centuries to the Ramnes, Titienses, and Luceres that Romulus had once created and to distinguish them by naming them after himself.” (pg. 45) [Tarquin was later persuaded by an augur to not change their names, but that story may be covering up the possibility that they are anachronistic names chosen by the Etruscan dynasty of the sixth century.]

Book 1, Chapter 13: “Three centuries of knights were also created, one called Ramnenses from Romulus, and a second Titienses from Titus Tatius; the reason for the name of the third century, Luceres, is uncertain.” (pg. 19). In his explanatory notes (pg. 343), T.J. Luce concludes: “The curiae and the three tribes were doubtless later Etruscan inventions that were anachronistically carried back to the earliest days of the city (the names of the three centuries derive from Etruscan gentile names).”

Gentile names, dating from the Orientalizing period, are a fancy word for family name, or surname as we know it today (refer to pages 84-85, Beginnings of Rome by T.J. Cornell for more information). Also called the nomen to distinguish it from the praenomen, or first name, the hereditary nomen could refer to a mythological figure, an individual ancestor, or geographic location, according to Wikipedia (see Etruscan Society). It is my contention that the nomen Ramnes is primarily referring to a legendary or mythological figure, i.e. Rama or Romulus, just as Romeo in Shakespeare’s play is fictional but larger than life. Gilbert Highet was hinting at this when he said Rome’s name may originate in the name of a ‘noble Etruscan family’, but he did not extend his reasoning further to see that the family name itself, if it ever existed, originated from mythical heroes in the East. Later we will see the name Ramnes is additionally referring to a geographic location, 'Ramah', in the Near Eastern lingua franca Aramaic.

It is only a coincidence that Romeo, the prototypical male romantic lover, stays true to one woman (Juliet) as Rama remains married to Sita his whole life. However, what is interesting is how the name Romeo has stuck - it is now applied to any man who is a devoted lover or loyal boyfriend. Similarly, the Indo-Persian name Rama or Ramna has persisted through the ages, starting from at least the middle of the first millennium BC. The first Persian Empire of the Achaemenids and the ancient Indian mahajanapadas (sixteen kingdoms, including Kosala where Rama was born) already existed before the Roman republic was established circa 500 BC.

Land Routes Across Achaemenid Empire, from Indian Gandhara to Ionian Greece, Late 6th Century BC. Reference: Lindsay Allen's book The Persian Empire, page 112

Sixteen Great Kingdoms of India, including Gandhara (Taxila), Kosala (Ayodhya), Magadha, Kamboja, Shurasena (Mathura), Pancala, Kuru (Hastinapur), Kasi (Varanasi)

Encyclopedia Iranica and Encyclopedia Britannica are valuable resources that can shed light on this heroic name and its origins in Iran and India, which both have Aryan roots. They both inform the reader about an obscure Persian king in the Achaemenid dynasty, which also produced the well-known Cyrus II, or Cyrus the Great in the sixth century BC.

Encyclopedia Britannica:
The Persian leader Ariyaramna, spelled as Ariaramnes by the Greeks, was an early Achaemenid king of Persia who reigned circa 640–615 BC. Arya-Ramnes allegedly ruled at the time when Rome, according to Tim Cornell, became a true metropolis worth the name (circa 625 BC, see pages 92-94, “Urbanisation” in Beginnings of Rome). In Professor Cornell’s opinion, “all the historical developments of the regal period” lie within the 625 - 500 BC range, a span which coincides with the emergence of the Persian Empire (pg. 121). The Persian Empire, at its greatest extent (c. 525 BC), covered all the land south of the Black and Caspian Seas from the Indus River to Ionia, making the transmission of 'Ramnes' to the Greeks and Italians possible. Thus the Hellenized form ‘Ramnes’ instead of ‘Ramna’ in the Persian king’s name is a hint that tells us what the Ramnes tribe of Romulus is named after. It came from Indo-Persia via Ionian Greece, and is not a native term, which explains why it is so mysterious. We have a genealogy of Persian kings from that period with Sanskrit-like names, including Ariya-Ramna, or in Greek Aria-Ramnes. It is analogous to the honorific title ‘Arya-Putra’ (son of an Aryan or honourable man, designation of a king by his wife and his subjects in Vedic culture).

Cyrus the Great, the most celebrated Persian king, has elements in his biography which are shared with many mythical heroes, including Romulus. Richard Frye states in Encyclopedia Britannica that Cyrus “held a place in the minds of the Persian people similar to that of Romulus and Remus in Rome… the overthrow of his tyrannical grandfather has echoes in other myths and legends." The stories in Italian myth and religion that revolve around Romulus contain “folk-tale elements which are echoed in myths and legends from many societies throughout the world. These legends concern the birth and upbringing of persons who grow up to become kings, founders, religious leaders, heroes or conquerors. Well-known examples include Cyrus of Persia.” (see pages 61-62, Beginnings of Rome by Cornell). Both Cyrus and Romulus are nursed by animals after their grandfather or uncle, who is a wicked king, attempts to murder them. They then grow up and overthrow the tyrant. Since Cornell accepts that the Romulus foundation legend had already started circulating by the late sixth century BC (pg. 68), we can pinpoint the Persian Empire (c. 550 - 525 BC) as the source of the heroic name Romulus. Regarding the story of Romulus, Cornell has argued against diffusion from Persia and other cultures. He claims it is indigenous or part of a universal pattern of myth-making in the Eurasian world (pg. 63), but the name Romulus itself is definitely non-indigenous, as is attested by Varro, the Roman historian, more than two thousand years ago. 

Encyclopedia Iranica (overseen by Dr. Ehsan Yarshater at Columbia University) gives us critical information:

ARIYĀRAMNA (Greek Ariaramnēs) is an Old Persian proper name. The derivation of *Aryārāman-, from aryā ‘Arians’ and rāman- ‘joy, peace,’ denoting ‘He who brings peace to the Arians (Aryans),’ is supposedly problematic in the Encyclopedia Iranica, but I think perfectly reasonable, as Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (1953), pg. 170, attests in its dictionary of Iranian words. It could also just mean “Aryan Rama” after the king of Ayodhya. There are many people named after Rama in India. The transmission sequence is as follows: Rāma (Sanskrit) > Rāman (Old Persian) > Ramnes (Greek, Etruscan) > Romanus (Latin).

Ariya-Ramna was the great-grandfather of Darius the Great (550 - 486 BC). According to the Behistun inscription of Darius his family had ruled ‘in two lines’ (duvitāparanam) before him, with Cyrus the Great appearing in one parallel line and Ariya-Ramna appearing in the other parallel line. Achaemenes, probably the mythical ancestor of both royal lines, could simply be another symbolic hero in the Aryan line of kshatriyas like Romulus or Aeneas in Italy. Duvita-paranam is cognate to Sanskrit ‘Dvidha-Parampara’ (Twofold-Succession), in my opinion. Please see Roland G. Kent’s book on Old Persian, page 158, for a graph of the Achaemenid family tree.

If we look at a list of non-Hellenized names of Achaemenid kings, including the real name of the eponymous founder of the dynasty himself, we get a totally different perspective free of Greek distortions: Achaemenes (Haksha-Manish), Ariaramnes (Arya-Ramna), Cyaxares (Uva-Kshatra), Cyrus the Great (Kurush Vazraka), Cambyses (Kambujiya), Hystaspes (Vishtāspa), Dārius (Daraya-Vahus), Xerxes (Kshay-Arsha), and Artaxerxes (Artha-Kshatra) are examples.

Artaxerxes (Artha-Kshaca), i.e. “whose (royal kshatriya) reign is through truth” and Xerxes (Kshaya-rsha), i.e. “ruling over heroes” are the most similar examples. In Sanskrit the full literal meaning of each name would be slightly different (e.g. Ārtha-Kshatriya is a noble/honorable warrior) depending on our interpretation. What is essential to notice is the common Indo-Iranian term ‘Kshatra’ (warrior/ruling class) in the names of Cyaxares, Artaxerxes, and Xerxes.

Romulus just represents the Eastern warrior-king known as Rāma or Arya-Rāman, and this is a recurrent theme in the iconography of royalty in Etruria and Latium at that time, which Cornell has suggested is not as “far-fetched” as it may seem. He writes in The Beginnings of Rome, Italy from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars: “That the sixth-century Roman kings claimed to enjoy the personal favour of divine powers, and that they adopted Greek and near-eastern models of kingship in their search for legitimacy and charismatic authority, may seem far-fetched; but the evidence that is now available indicates that that is precisely what they did.” (pg. 147). Thefarie Velianas of Caere, for example, made a dedication to Phoenician Astarte in Pyrgi, and Pisistratus of Athens, who identified himself with Hercules, believed he had Athena’s support and assistance (pg. 148). The 6th century Sant’Omobono santuary, or remains of an archaic temple in the Forum Boarium in Rome, contained a statue group of Hercules and Athena that verifies how Roman kings (in this case Servius Tullius according to tradition) imitated the ostentatious Greek tyrants. It may seem even more far-fetched to suggest that they adopted Indian and Persian models of kingship, but the mysterious name of Romulus and the Ramayanic paintings from Caere prove this conjecture. The god Mithra became associated with the Roman warrior class in later years, but this type of Indo-Persian impact was also present earlier; unfortunately, most of the evidence has been either ignored, suppressed, or hidden.

What is remarkable is the continuity that exists in the Hindu and Zoroastrian traditions, when we examine their respective scriptures. The Hindu Rig Veda and Zoroastrian Avesta are similiar in language, and both ethnic groups referred to themselves as Aryans. In Encyclopedia Iranica’s entry on the Indo-Iranian wind god Vāyu, the spiritual deity Rām is also described. Verses from the Zoroastrian scripture Bundahishn, which is said to have some pre-Zoroastrian elements, reveal a close affinity between the Persian Rāman (or Rām) and the Indian Rāma. The Iranian encyclopedia translates the Bundahišn (26.28-29) thus:

‘Rām, whom one calls Good Way of long-dominion, is himself Way of long-dominion who, among the Spiritual Deities, has as his proper activity chieftainship of the Warriors. And when the soul (gyān) of the righteous crosses the Cinwat-bridge, the Good Way takes his hand and brings him to his proper place. One calls (him) ‘Rām’ for the reason that he is the giver of pleasure (rāmišn-dādār) to the whole world. When the Bad Way strikes the life-breath (gyān) from the body, this Good Wāy receives it and gives it contentment.’

In Sanskrit, ‘Rāma’ has the same meaning, pleasing and charming, which has been extended to pleasing the whole world in the divine incarnation of Rama. ‘Rāma-dāthra’ (pleasure-giver) in Sanskrit is the equivalent of Zoroastrian rāmišn-dādār. The Indian god Rama is also recognized as the best Aryan warrior in the Hindu epic of Valmiki. The ‘Cinwat-bridge’ mentioned above, is defined as the pathway that “leads from this world to the next and must be crossed by the souls of the departed” by the encyclopedia. The righteous souls, who are full of knowledge or gyāna (also spelled jñana - the path of wisdom) in Hinduism, are guided to the supreme destination, heaven, or a higher birth on the earthly planet. This is one of the pillars of Hindu philosophy, regarding transmigration and reincarnation, along with liberation of the soul. The vague term ‘Good Way’ is a substitute for the personal God who rewards salvation, analogous to the Good Shepherd Jesus or Gopala Krishna. In the Valmiki Ramayana, Lord Rama builds a bridge (Rama-setu) over the ocean to save Sita from Ravana, who metaphorically symbolizes the ‘Bad Way’. Even when the body perishes due to accumulated karma, the Zoroastrian Bundahišn tells us that God preserves the life-breath, or spiritual living entity. Obviously the Upanishads contain the same philosophy. The parallels between the two cultures, Indian and Persian (known as Parsees when some of them immigrated to India), are therefore astonishingly close.

Continued in Part II

The Etruscan City of Volterra is Sanskrit Veladhri, or Mountainous Coastal Town

The actual name of one of Tuscany's most famous tourist destinations was Velathri or Felathri in the Early Iron Age (~750 B.C.), which is the Sanskrit term “Velaadhri”, meaning a mountain situated near the coast. Sanskrit letter ‘V’ is pronounced between the phonetic sounds ‘B’ and ‘V’ in the Roman alphabet, perhaps yielding an ‘F’ or 'V' sound for the Etruscan people. 'Vela' means tide, shore, coastline, or any boundary of land and sea; the second part of the compound 'Adri' means stone, rock, or mountain. The Romans called it Volaterrae by the 3rd century B.C. and later this word came to be shortened as Volterra in English spelling. Conveniently visited on a day trip (1 hour drive, 75 km) from Florence, the center of Europe's renaissance, Velathri overlooks the Era and Cecina river valleys, adding many shorelines to its landscape.

Scenic View of Volterra, Tuscany
Fig. 1, pg. 4 of Sybille Haynes' book - Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History 

Volterra today is a small town located about 1800 feet or 550 meters above sea level, by far the highest elevation among the twelve major cities in the ancient Etruscan League. Also the Tyrrhenian or Ligurian coastline in Cecina is about 40 kilometers or 25 miles away from the city of Volterra, which is not a particularly far distance. According to tourist website http://www.tripsite.com/road-bike/tours/tuscany/: “The city is situated on the back of a mountain right in the middle of the Tuscan landscape. Thanks to its impressive position, according to the weather, you can enjoy a wonderful view from the Apuan Alps to the Tyrrhenian Sea.” Etruscan tribes also once occupied the territory of Campania, including the cities of Herculaneum, Pompeii, and Surrentum (Sorrento), as attested by Aldo Massa (World of the Etruscans, pg. 33-34). Therefore this civilization must have spread across most or all of Italy before it became confined to modern day Tuscany. This demonstrates that the original heritage of Italy is Etruscan, not Roman, and their language must be either partially related to the Indo-European family or at the very least they borrowed liberally from Sanskrit.

Etruscan Cities from National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 173 No. 6, June 1988

The above map indicates that Etruscans were the dominant power in the northern mountainous areas and on the western coastline of Italy by the end of the sixth century. Notice that Felathri (Volterra), Vetluna (Vetulonia), and Velch (Vulci) are all located near the sea. The Sanskrit word 'Vela', as it relates to sea or ocean coasts, is also found in Latin terminology and place names. Vela is a constellation in astronomy, literally meaning "sails of a ship" because of the word's intimate connection with bodies of water in Sanskrit. Not incidentally, the ancient city of Velia in Magna Graecia, Campania lies right on the coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea. Because Roman and Greek languages are classified as Indo-European due to their close affinity with Sanskrit, the Tyrrhenians (another name for Etruscans) must have learned some Sanskrit vocabulary words like 'vela' from their neighbors. But modern Italians themselves seem oblivious to any vestiges of Indian influence on their geographical nomenclature.

To illustrate the confusion of Italian scholars regarding the name Velathri, an online travel guide states, "Etruscan names containing the root 'Vel' usually indicated a height, a hill. By extension, the same root as 'Vel' was found in the names of families of 'high' status." This vague definition has problems, most notably the lack of any explanation for the 'athri' suffix in 'Velathri'. Most Etruscan aristocratic family names (Porsenna, Tarquin, Remzna, Vipinana) are totally unrelated to 'Vel', so the guide's deceptive reasoning that 'Vel' was associated with higher classes is almost baseless. Simply because one important king of Caere (i.e. Thefarie Velianas) or some other prominent person had the same prefix in his family name does not automatically make 'Vel' an adjective of nobility! How stupid and gullible are we as readers to digest such facile logic? It goes to show that internet posters can write almost anything with no substantiation whatsoever. Certainly drawing the conclusion that some families derived their names from cities where they started out is reasonable (e.g. the Velcha clan who must have hailed from Vulci), but specious arguments such as those found in travel guides should not be taken seriously. 

Swastika Symbols on Gold Pendant, Bolsena, Italy (700-650 B.C.) at Louvre Museum

Velzna (modern Bolsena or Roman Volsinii) is another subject of controversy, which is unwarranted. A Byzantine historian of the 12th century A.D. (Joannes Zonaras) claims that Etruscan Velzna must have been perched on a steep hill but Bolsena today is situated on level plains. Since Orvieto and Montefiascone are located at elevated sites nearby, there has been debate about which place represents the bygone city of Velzna. None of this speculation will yield any satisfactory result if ancient Velzna contained all of these different areas under its control and administration. For our purposes, we first want to discern why it was called 'Velzna', and the answer is that it straddled Lake Bolsena on both sides. Remember 'Vela' signifies any major boundary of land and water in Sanskrit. Orvieto is 14 km from Bolsena, which was established by the Romans on the northeastern shore of the lake after they destroyed the original Velzna in 264 B.C. Montefiascone is right next to the southern tip of Lake Bolsena, so probably the entire region was governed by the Etruscan leaders of Velzna, but after Roman subjugation it got pigeonholed to one spot on the map - modern Bolsena (Volsinii Novi or New Volsinii). 

Modern Names of Italian Cities in Etruria, including Bolsena & Volterra

Similarly, it could well be that Volterra constituted or encompassed a larger urban region, including nearby Cecina on the coast. Hence, "In the city (Volterra) and in the rural regions surrounding it a particular type of grave stela was developed during the sixth century for the monumental tombs of eminent aristocratic men, showing them in their social aspect of warrior or priest," author Sybille Haynes writes, hinting at this unusual phenomenon of spreading local culture through funeral art (Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History, pg. 248). Around 550-500 B.C. many artifacts point to a growing consciousness of the Ramayana in Etruria, especially those discovered at the city of Caisra (i.e. Caere or Cerveteri). There is a strong possibility that the celebration of Rama's story reached its zenith in Italy during the reign of the Tarquins in Rome, which spanned the entire sixth century (616-509 B.C.) and below is an example from Volterra that appears to match Rama and Lakshman's walking stance in the Campana paintings:

"A bearded man with long, horizontally furrowed hair and dressed in a short tunic, Avile Tite walks in profile to the left, holding a spear in his right and a sword with a curved handle in his left hand. His massive, muscular body betrays East Greek prototypes" (pg. 249, Haynes). Her dating of this stela is exactly the same as that of the Louvre's Campana plaques found in Cerveteri - the third quarter of the sixth century B.C. (550-525). As an investigator, I believe that all these similar findings from a particular time period are linked by some core values and beliefs. Avile Tite is likely representative of the ideal noble warrior, modeled after two of the greatest heroes in Eastern religion, Rama and Lakshman.

Rama, Sita, and Lakshman (right to left): Archeological Museum, Bologna, Italy

Rama and Lakshman were Eastern paragons of the virtuous and courageous kshatriya caste, so naturally Greek and Etruscan artists gravitated to them. Their valiant struggle as forest dwellers to overcome an indomitable force like Ravana must have appealed to the predominantly rural civilization of Etruria. "Of wielders of weapons I am Rama," sings Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita (10.31), justifying how Rama could overcome the powerful demon Ravana. Despite access to all these available details in a global information age, the Louvre feigns ignorance like a stumped schoolboy when discussing the walking scene from Caere (Campana slab) above:

"The exact identification of the subjects represented by these paintings are still causing controversy today. The location in which they were discovered does not allow us to conclude that this is a strictly funerary iconography. Mythological interpretations are hardly more conclusive."
http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/campana-slab-man-altar

Since they never bother to examine Oriental or Eastern mythology, the curators at this eminent French museum, arguably the most important collection in the western world, will continue to fail in their half-hearted attempts to solve this so-called mystery. Inscribed swastikas on a gold pendant from Velzna or Bolsena (7th century B.C.), as shown earlier from the Louvre, should alert them of Vedic culture's potential relationship to the Campana painting.

Orvieto's museum also contains an impressive stone-headed warrior from the second half of the sixth century B.C. that may not be directly associated with Rama, but nonetheless is reflective of the emphasis on martial art in the Orientalizing period. A short, quality youtube video on this sculpture and an unidentified female divinity with possible Vedic origins can be seen here.